Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T11:13:45.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulation interoperability — where are the challenges?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

B. N. Tomlinson
B. N. Tomlinson*
Affiliation:
Simulation Consultant, BT Associates, Bedford, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper will discuss and review the nature of simulation interoperability. It will analyse the scope of interoperability in terms of basic intercommunication features (technical interoperability), fitness for purpose (functional interoperability) and suitability for use in distributed training (training interoperability). Only technical interoperability has received close attention, through DIS and HLA standards. Other aspects still present many challenges. The ability to create a common ‘outside world’ database is frequently cited as the dominant component and principal challenge in any discussion of interoperability. While this is often true, this paper identifies how interactions among all participants in the shared operational space (‘battlespace’) should be the starting point in defining interoperability, these interactions of course being dictated by the training requirement. Interactions are accomplished through ‘sensors’, which could be the human eye, night vision goggles (NVGs), radios, data links, radar, FLIR etc. Comprehensive interoperability demands comparable levels of modelling among all participants, including the effect of the environment (whether terrain or meteorology) on the performance of each simulator’s sensor suite. The paper will identify these significant effects and discuss where simulation technology is challenged and needs to advance, particularly in the context of mission simulation of future joint (Air/Land/Maritime) operations. The paper concludes with some discussion of the way ahead, including how guidelines based on experience could augment the use of standards.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1129 , March 2008 , pp. 153 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Alluisi, E.A., The Development of technology for collective training: SIMNET, a case history, Human Factors, 1991, 33, (3), pp 343–362.Google Scholar
2. Ceranowicz, A. et al, Reflections on building the joint experimental federation, proceedings Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC). Orlando, FL, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
3. Dahmann, J. et al HLA and Beyond: Interoperability Challenges, Simulation Interoperability Workshop paper 99F-SIW-073, 1999.Google Scholar
4. Danner, B. and Valle, T., Multilevel Security Assessment for the Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON), Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 2005.Google Scholar
5. Davis, P.K. and Anderson, R.H., Improving the Composability of DoD Models and Simulations, RAND publication MG101, 2003. Also available in a shortened version, published in JDMS, 1, (1), pp 5–17, April 2004.Google Scholar
6. Davis, P.K. and Anderson, R.H., Improving the composability of DoD models and simulations, April 2004, JDMS, 1, (1), pp 5–17. Standards for Distributed Interactive Simulation: Communication Services and Profiles, IEEE 1278.2-1995, New York, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 1995.Google Scholar
7. Standards for Distributed Interactive Simulation: Exercise Management and Feedback, IEEE 1278.3 – 1996, New York, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
8. Standards for Distributed Interactive Simulation: Application Protocols (IEEE 1278.1-1995 and Extension 1278.1A – 1998, New York, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
9. Standards for Distributed Interactive Simulation: Verification, Validation and Accreditation – Recommended Practice, IEEE 1278.4 – 1998, New York, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
10. DoD Directive 5000.59, DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Management, 4 January 1994.Google Scholar
11. DoD 5000.59-P, Modeling and Simulation Master Plan, October 1995.Google Scholar
12. Grohs, R., Combat Air Forces Distributed Mission Operations CAF-DMO. Presentation to Royal Aeronautical Society, Flight Simulation Group Conference on Multi Role and Networked Simulation, London, UK, 11-12 May 2005.Google Scholar
13. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA): Framework and Rules (IEEE 1516-2000); Federate Interface Specification (IEEE 1516.1-2000); Object Model Template (OMT) Specification (IEEE 1516.2-2000).Google Scholar
14. IEEE Recommended Practice for High Level Architecture (HLA) Federation Development and Execution Process (FEDEP) (IEEE 1516.3-2003).Google Scholar
15. Joint Services Glossary. Joint Service Publication JSP110.Google Scholar
16. Lunnon, R.W., Meteorological data, with particular reference to the UK Met Office mesoscale model, in RAeS conference on Data Issues for Flight Simulators – an On-Going Problem?, London, UK, 10-11 November 1993.Google Scholar
17. Mayo, E., Towards Training the 21st Century Combined Force and the Simulation Interoperability Challenges, Conference on Flight Simulation Data, Interoperability and Re-use; Are We Achieving the Dream? Royal Aeronautical Society, London, 23-24 May 2007. Scheduled to be published in The Aeronautical Journal.Google Scholar
18. Malézieux, P. and Delghingaro, B., Lessons learned from improving legacy simulators to enable collaborative training in a multi-national environment. Paper at Royal Aeronautical Society, Flight Simulation Group Conference Multi Role and Networked Simulation, London, 11-12 May 2005.Google Scholar
19. Mission Training via Distributed Simulation and First WAVE: Final Report. NATO RTO Technical Report TR-SAS-034, 2007Google Scholar
20. Petty, M.D. and Weisel, E.W., A composability lexicon. Proceedings Spring 2003 Simulation Interoperability Workshop.Google Scholar
21. Tolk, A. and Muguira, J.A., The levels of conceptual interoperability model (LCIM). Proceedings IEEE Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, 2003, IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
22. Tomlinson, B.N., First WAVE and Mission Training through Distributed Simulation in NATO. Presentation to Royal Aeronautical Society, Flight Simulation Group Conference Multi Role and Networked Simulation, London, 11-12 May 2005.Google Scholar
23. Windyga, P., Franceschini, R., Goldiez, B. and Griffin, A.A., Towards a simulation interoperability methodology and supporting software, NATO M&S Symposium, October 2000.Google Scholar